Under Current Laws, Mass Murder May As Well Be A Constitutional Right

Tags

Every time we have one of these increasingly frequent ritualized killing sprees here in the United States, we have essentially the same national conversation. And then nothing happens. Between the First and Second Amendments as currently understood, mass murder may as well be a constitutional right.

Arguments about guns have been worn so threadbare that people may as well be having them in their sleep. Observing friends bickering on Facebook, I wondered what was the point?

To start with, guns will never be banned entirely. Saying they should be only empowers crackpots. So shut up with that, alright?

The Second Amendment, however, consists of one twenty-six word sentence, two of which are “well-regulated.” Furthermore, it was written to protect a citizen’s right to own a single-shot, muzzle-loading musket with an effective range of fewer than 50 yards.

I’m all for that. No limits.

However, the notion that it’d be an impediment to liberty to limit ownership of semi-automatic assault rifles with 100-shot magazines, or to make it harder to buy 6000 rounds of ammo online strikes me as not merely foolish, but downright childish.

So when I read about somebody like Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain gun owners, telling reporters there’s no need to inconvenience “law-abiding sportsmen and target shooters [who]…can easily blow through 400 or 500 rounds in one vigorous day at a shooting range,” I just want to say: How about growing up?